I do not want President Obama to succeed.......

Now that Obama administration has begun and Congress is in session, I am worried by what I have heard from these two branches of government. The 1 TRILLION dollar "stimulus" package will not stimulate anything. It is another big government spending spree and pork barrel projects.

THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT SPEND US OUT OF A RECESSION!!!

Despite what history teachers or what you may have learn in school, the FDR's New Deal did not get us out of the Great Depression. The US did not get out of the Depression until World War II had started, as you can see by these graphs.

As you see, the unemployment rate under FDR did not get below 20% until 1941 after we had began to shift to a war economy.



















All the propaganda that we have heard our entire lives about how great the New Deal was is totally false.


That may be a surprise to most of you.

Now, let us look at what happens when you CUT TAXES and CUT SPENDING! Look what happens after the evil Bush tax cuts.


Every important economic indicator went up! GDP, Investment, S&P 500, JOB CREATION! I was part of that. I started my company in 2002 and added 5 jobs to the economy. Since the election, I have had to cut my staff by 40%!!!


Government spending is not the answer. We need to cut taxes AGAIN! Every time that Congress does it. The economy gets better! Income rises! Receipts to the government increase! Government is not the solution. It is the problem. Remember, the reason that we are in this recession is because Congress did not do their job in properly overseeing the Fannie and Freddie. They pushed risky loans on lenders. And, when the Congressional Republicans tried to fix it, the Democrats (Barney Frank and Chris Dodd) shot every reform down.

Now, WE, the taxpayers, are stock holders in Bank of America and other financial institutions.


No where in the world has socialism (and that is what this "stimulus" is) has ever worked.


Name me one country.......................................................................................................................


I am waiting........................................................................................................................................


Good thing I did not hold my breath!

I do not want President Obama to succeed if he implements the policies that he espoused in his campaign. There are over 53 MILLION people that did not vote for him and his policies. I will support President Obama if he cuts taxes and reduces government spending.

But, I better not hold my breath.

'Twas the Night of the Christmas Closing

The Christmas Closing

‘Twas an hour before closing and the agents were tense,
To close Christmas Eve just didn’t make sense.
But the Seller was booked on the 6 o’clock flight,
And he warned, “there WILL be a closing tonight.”
The agents agreed because business was dead,
And visions of commission checks danced in their heads.
The loan was approved by the lender’s good grace,
Everyone knew ‘twas a borderline case.
The Buyers divorced, remarried again,
Divorced once more, and now were just friends.
The loan package complete to the closer was carried,
With instructions to close before they remarried.
The title policy arrived via UPS,
From page on through sixteen a terrible mess.
An improper legal, 3 judgments, 2 liens,
But a few lines on page seven looked pretty clean.
The title was cleared and the closing was set,
But to finish today was not a sure bet.
The closer dashed in waving her HUD,
It was covered with white-out, coffee and crud.
But down in the corner you barely could see,
The Buyer still owed a buck thirty-three.
So the closer extracted a bill from her compact,
And the agents agreed to the rest…on a contract.
To add some interest the Seller revealed,
To everyone’s horror-the well wasn’t sealed!
And, oh yes, he wanted to change the disclosure,
His mother just died of radon exposure.
Everything else in his house was okay,
His cracked floors and walls were always that way!
About that time the Buyer chimed in,
“We’d like to continue, but before we begin,
I noticed these papers-I’m likely to blame,
But I gave my agent my wrong legal name.
And one more thing I had hoped to avoid,
Does it really matter if I’m self-employed?”
About this time the closer exploded,
She pulled out a gun and said it was loaded.
Everyone froze and sat there amazed,
She frothed at the mouth and her eyes were both glazed.
More rapid than eagles her curses they came,
She bristled and spouted and called them bad names.
“The closing is off, do I make myself clear?
Merry Christmas to all, Now GET OUT OF HERE!”

A rose by any other name....Congressional Hearings

First, let me apologize for being so far in between entries. I had to get over my election depression and realization that life will go on, just maybe a little slower business-wise.

Today, I am at home with a sick child which allowed me to watch the Fannie & Freddie hearings. All I can say is how do these people walk?!?!?! These people have a Co-Jones (pronounce as if it was Spanish).

The Dems are still trying to deflect the blame to someone else, as well as, Franklin Raines et al.

I truly enjoyed watching Rep. John Mico (7th-FL). He spoke directly to Mr. Raines and told him that he was the problem. He directly asked him how much money that he had made during his tenure as head of Fannie. He said, without apology, NINETY MILLION DOLLARS ($90,000,000)!!!! That is right! Eight digits!!

I know that this is not news. But, it is the first time that is came from the donkey's mouth. (I know that the saying is for a horse, but he is a Dem).

These former heads of Fannie/Freddie all admitted that better underwriting standards would have prevented this mess. BUT, they do not take any blame for lowering the regulations or the underwriting standards! How can they do that with a straight face?!?!?!

Then, they had a question from a sympathetic Dem on the committee. This representative asked, "was it just a perfect bad storm that the housing market collapsed? Would having a 30% drop in home values cause such a situation?"

Good questions!! Except, THE only reason that we have a collapse of the housing market and a 30% decrease in home values is because of the lax underwriting standards (i.e. no verification of income, assets, etc.), Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) and pushing from congress and Fannie/Freddie to make these type of loans!!

Of course, the Dems and the leaders of Fannie/Freddie do not take the blame, who is to blame? As always blame the Republican held congress. However, they do not take any credit/blame for blocking any effort to regulate Fannie/Freddie. Fannie had its' own lobbyists and representatives killing every bill. They went on the hill and said everything is hunky and dory. Of course, that was not the case.

This ins not going to change under the Obama administration and the "NEW" congress. Remember, the Obama was involved with ACORN pressuring banks to make these exact type of loans. The Dems are in the pocket of Fannie and Freddie. I think that we will revisit these things again; however, just under a different name.

What's in a name? that which we call a rose

By any other name would smell as sweet....

or it could be like putting lipstick on a pig!!

What Obama really believes -- The Constitution has "negative liberties" and We need "redistributive change"

This day and age of the Internet can be a blessing and a curse. Today, I believe that it is a blessing because people's interviews and beliefs survive. The current media, who have turned a blind-eye toward Barack Obama's true beliefs, cannot keep these suppressed. Here are two AMAZING and DISTURBING interviews that Obama has given.

The first one is from a 2001 interview with the Chicago public radio station, WBEZ. In this interview, Obama speaks of the Civil Rights Movement; and, how the U.S. Supreme Court did not go far enough. He believes that the Court should have done "redistributive change"; and, the Constitution has "negative liberties".

What he means is that the government does not have enough rights to protect us from ourselves. I know that Obama taught constitutional law and should know that the U.S. Constitution IS a limiting document. Any rights the government has come from the PEOPLE! That is the way our founding fathers wanted it. They wanted to limited government intervention into our lives. They had lived under the oppression and taxation without representation under King George III of England. They did not want to live in a NANNY STATE!!!

Please click here to here the interview. It is really opens your eyes straight into what kind of change Obama REALLY wants!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

Here is a partial the transcript from that interview:

"You know, if you look at the victories and failures of the civil-rights movement, and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it, I’d be okay, but the Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren
Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution — at least as it’s been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of strong negative liberties: [It] says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn’t shifted, and one of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil-rights movement was because the civil-rights movement became so court-focused, uh, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that."

The second in 1995, where he is talking about his book Dreams From My Father. He is speaking of his disdain for white suburbanites who do not want to pay more taxes to take care of the inner cities. Obama admits his Redistribution of Wealth is to SAVE the African American community SO HE CAN ENSURE HIS OWN SALVATION! (and Our Countries Salvation) He compares the plight of African Americas to the ethic genocide's of Bosnia and Africa. He blames all of African-American's problems on "ONE GROUP" who suppresses them. And He says WHITE people don't want their taxes to help black children.

These are HIS words not mine. Listen, it takes only about twelves minutes to hear the who interview; but, it is well worth the time.

The Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution clearly state the all rights granted to the government come from the PEOPLE!! NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!!!

Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?

I found this article on The Drudge report. It is a commentary written by a DEMOCRAT JOURNALIST!!!! I could not have written it better myself. I just wish that it would get more play around the country. That is so refreshing to find ONE honest journalist in the country!! He should win the Pulitzer!!!

Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
By Orson Scott Card

Editor's note: Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a newspaper
columnist, and in this opinion piece he takes on both while lamenting the current state of journalism.

An open letter to the local daily paper — almost every local daily paper in America:

I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.

This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration. It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan?

It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay. The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay?

They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose
the house — along with their credit rating. They end up worse off than before. This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions
to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible
loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep
confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout?

Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."

Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both
Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush dministration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.

As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled "Do Facts matter?" ( http://snipurl.com/457to] ): "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."

These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.

Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!

What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?

Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae. And after Freddie
Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the
ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign
actually consulted him for advice on housing.

If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.

But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign — because that campaign had sought his advice — you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.

You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican. If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, ncluding Obama.

If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.

There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that
Americans had that misapprehension — so you pounded us with the fact that there
was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)

If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are
actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.

Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.

But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie — that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad — even bad weather — on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.

If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth — even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate. Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences.

That's what honesty means . That's how trust is earned.

Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time — and you have swept it under the rug,
treated it as nothing.

Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter — while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months.

So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?

Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?

You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.

That's where you are right now. It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be loving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.

If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.

Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the
finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.

You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his
administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.

This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.

If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe — and vote as if — President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.

If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats — including Barack Obama — and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans — then you are not journalists by any standard. You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a news paper in our city.

What is the deal with the stock markets?!?!?!?

There seems to be a real big disconnect between reality and the markets. They are acting totally irrationally. There is not a logical reason for the dramatic drop in value. I believe there is a "lemming" affect going on here. One market feeds of the other...Europe after the U.S.; the U.S. after the Asian markets. It is a vicious cycle fueled by panic. But, what is causing the panic????

The credit crisis is not the only factor. So, what is it?

I have a theory. Is it the fact that Barak Obama is leading our presidental race???? Do the markets fear an Obama presidency? I believe so. His socialistic policies are scaring the heck out of them. Theses investors are selling without regard to profit or losses.

GMAC is selling at $6.00!!! Six bucks!!! That is ridiculous!!! This is the time to buy! I mean, what is $6.00? That is what you pay for a cup of coffee! Not a blue-chip stock!

The market keeps falling and Obama keeps leading. I just cannot let the connection go. There is no other "reasonable" explanation.

So, what do we do??? Buy!!! AND, ELECT McCAIN/PALIN!!!

2nd Debate and the reaction

I do not know what debate the political pundits were watching last night. Every one of them said that there was "nothing new" and McCain did not do what he had to do to "change the momentum". The lead headline on the Drudge Report was a blaring "BORING!".

I have been active in politics for over 20 years; and, I have run for public office. What I saw last night was an energetic McCain. He was giving specifics and attacking Obama on every issue and question asked. I think that he did do what he needed to do. He laid the ground work for the next debate and the last days of the campaign. He should not of brought Ayers, Wright, et al, because he would have been attached for bringing up things that had nothing to do with the questions. It would of been a "no-win" situation for him. He and Palin can bring these things up in advertisements, stump speeches, and the final debate.

He introduced the buying of the loans of people who have negative equity in their homes that were caused by overly ambitious appraisals. These people are upside-down in their homes. They can't sale or refinance. However, McCain's proposal is NOT new! He first brought this up back in APRIL! Also, these so-called talking-head "experts", were "shocked" at this proposal. They thought that this was an additional $300 billion expenditure. I did not take this way. I took this to mean that he was going to use the money of the wonderful $700 billion bailout to implement this plan.

You know what? I was RIGHT and the "experts" were WRONG! Today, on McCain's campaign site, they have the details of this plan. GUESS WHAT! They are going to use the existing money already allocated. Click here to see the Homeownership Resurgence Plan:

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/Read.aspx?guid=b9af0d4c-9c0e-4a97-b27f-19df8cfec83d

I LOVE BEING RIGHT!

Anyway, I think that the McCain definitely WON the debate last night. Obama is employing the same strategy that he used in the democratic primary. He is running out the clock. He believes that as long as he does not do anything outrageous. He will coast to the finish line. This strategy almost cost him the nomination. I hope that he continues because this time ALL of the delegates (electors) are voted on in ONE night!

Then, we will be inaugurating President McCain and Vice-President Palin! WOW, that sounds GREAT!